[ssl-3]

If the devices at each end of the cable are built to spec, and the cable itself is also built to spec, and nothing is damaged, then: USB-C is always ambidextrous.

The spec works fine. It really does. It is complete and functional in its ambidextrous nature.

The usual problems happen when people and/or companies don't spend the time to understand it, and/or find merit in shaving a few tenths of a cent on the BOM. In these instances, we get out-of-spec things that quite predictably work in out-of-spec ways.

[tardedmeme]

Idiot proofing is part of what makes a good spec good.

[ssl-3]

The spec is good. Spec-compliant devices tolerate idiot users extremely well.

The implementers of the spec are sometimes errant nimrods, though. Errant nimrods can bring a bad time to any party they decide to be involved in. This can be particularly problematic when they're weaponized by having their own manufacturing divisions.

(And that's not new: Errant nimrods have been in charge of manufacturing fucked up devices for as long as we've had devices for them to fuck up. Probably centuries, by now; maybe longer.)

[tardedmeme]

Implementers and end users are both customers of the spec.

[izacus]

I see a lot of complaining and very little proposed alternatives. What do you propose USB-C standard should have done?

[ssl-3]

Sure.

But only one of these groups is responsible for supplying actual-fucking-hardware to the group that simply uses it.

And sometimes, that group consists of errant fucking nimrods.